Appendix talk:Harry Potter

Concordance talk:Harry Potter
How does this belong to Wiktionary? -- Prince Kassad 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be copied from a (deleted?) Wikipedia article, including all the templates that appear as red links. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Copy the Potter-specific words in the TOC into the concordance, I suppose, and then delete. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 16:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC
 * Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

RFDO discussion: November 2013–April 2014

 * See Appendix talk:Roger Rabbit.

RFDO discussion: December 2016–September 2017
...and subpages. I don't think we should have appendices for fiction when the individual listed words would fail WT:FICTION. I see this as a vanity project by a fan who didn't really think about its relevance to Wiktionary. Most of these were deleted as a result of Appendix talk:Roger Rabbit, but User:-sche, at least, voted to keep this one. We also have links to the appendix from mainspace (e.g. expelliarmus), which to me seems like a sneaky way to get HP words into mainspace even when they shouldn't be there. Equinox ◑ 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless. Might be helpful to someone who really doesn't know which words are coinages from the books. bd2412 T 03:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this and other appendices of fictional universes; any moderately-sizable fandom will inevitably make their own wiki. Yes, I know CFI does not disallow these appendices.__Gamren (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These appendices also prevent endless debates as to whether the vocabulary of these fictional worlds meets CFI, when those fandoms try to make mainspace entries from them. bd2412 T 18:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is fansite material. It is not appropriate for a dictionary. Any terms coined in HP that can be shown to have escaped that Universe and entered general use should have dictionary entries. The rest should be deleted. Mihia (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As it stands, Delete. I could see some value in this if it gave the etymologies of the words along the lines of Appendix:A Clockwork Orange (For example, pointing that Crucio is from the Latin crucio, that Pensieve is a pun on pensive and sieve), but there's no lexicographical info here as it stands. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created most of that stuff. This is false: "who didn't really think about its relevance to Wiktionary". Fandom stuff was one of my first large projects here, therefore I thought about it. Fandom terms are nice. If other people don't want fandom terms here, I'll respect their right to govern Wiktionary too, and based on their judgement (not my judgement) we can delete these pages. However, I personally support having these pages. There are still thousands of other series, cartoons, comics, books and movies without appendices here. If people decide it's OK to create these appendices, I think it would be great. Naturally, I'm only talking about those works of fiction that have terms specific to them, like "lightsaber". (there are probably other thousands of works of fiction that didn't invent any new words) On the other hand, I'd also support limiting fiction appendices to terms that are used in 3 durably-archived quotations, and therefore I probably wouldn't want to create appendices just because the term appeared in the original book or film. Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and apparently Wikibooks (Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter) have pages about works of fiction. Wiktionary should too, at least as appendices. That is, at least, my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: If we decide to keep appendices for a great number of words invented in fiction, we have some naming options like 1) one appendix per work, like the current Appendix:Harry Potter, 2) a few appendices containing many titles at once, probably organized alphabetically, like Appendix:Fictional words/H including Harry Potter, 3) probably other variations are possible instead of those, like by author, country, type of work (book, video game, movie). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per BD2412 and Daniel Carrero. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise Keep per BD2412. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 21:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * RFD kept as no consensus. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletions
Three Harry Potter appendices hav been deleted! (I think they ar “Spells”, “Places”, and “Events”.) Why? These appendices ar there for a reason: they ar useful for anyone looking up Harry Potter terminology, just as the main namespace is useful for general terminology. And there is very strong precedent for Wiktionary (WT) content outside of the main namespace; for instance, reconstructed terms, such as in Category:Proto-Indo-European lemmas.

This seems like a war on Harry Potter! (It is well known that some people object to HP on religious grounds; see ) As proof of the overwhelming prominence of the HP series: each of the last four HP books – ', ', ', and ' – set a new record for the fastest-selling book of all time. (See .) And when looking up Hermione Granger on Google (incl. Google Image), i just write “Hermione”; almost all results refer to her.

Mor signs of a war on HP, include the removal, from Wikipedia:“”, of any reference to, even tho she is, nowadays, like it or not, overwhelmingly the most common use of the name “Hermione”! (And almost certainly will be, for the foreseeable future.) (I discussed, on Wikipedia [WP], said repeated removal; i was told there was an edit was about it. Wikipedians agreed with me that said reference in said disambiguation page, should be included.)

Also, on the WT article “Hermione”, my additions of any reference to Hermione Granger hav been repeatedly removed. This censorship of all references to her, creates multiple double standards!
 * The WT article “Robin” (proper name, not to be confused with the article “robin” [bird]), links to the WP article “” (in ), and also links to WT article “Robin Hood”, and is placed in Category:en:Fictional characters. It wouldn’t hurt if the WT article “Hermione” likewise had a link to WP:“Hermione Granger”; it is not uncommon for a WT article to hav two, sometimes three or mor, links to WP articles with same or similar name. Likewise, the WT article “Hermione” could appropriately be placed in both Category:en:Fictional characters and Category:en:Harry Potter.
 * I added, to the WT article “walker”, the usage note, that the meaning ‘zombie’ is used mainly in . But i added, to the WT article “Hermione”, a usage note that said name nowadays usually refers to Hermione Granger. This usage note should be okay, on the same basis as the one for “walker”.
 * See Category:en:William Shakespeare. Many articles in it, refer to Shakespeare characters. Shouldn’t articles on HP characters be included in Category:en:Harry Potter on a comparable basis? Is not having the article “Hermione” in Category:en:Harry Potter, much different from not having articles like “Juliet” or “Desdemona” in Category:en:William Shakespeare? Indeed, if you Google “Juliet”, the portion of results that do not refer to Juliet of , will be much higher that the portion of results that don’t refer to Hermione Granger, if you Google “Hermione”.
 * On my User Talk page, someone wrote, in arguing against my adding the article “Hermione” to Category:en:Harry Potter, “Maybe famous old Greek mythology, but not recent pop culture like Harry Potter.” (Refers to Hermione of Greek mythology; hence the WT article “Hermione” is placed in Category:en:Greek mythology.) This argument (against putting said WT article in Category:en:Harry Potter) is very hypocritical, given that Hermione Granger is nowadays overwhelmingly mor famous (and almost certainly will be for the foreseeable future) that Hermione of Greek mythology.
 * Another Wiktionarian, protesting the same issue, wrote on my User Talk page, “If there is not a definition for a fictional character, then categories related to that character are not welcome.” But, as i said, the WT article “Robin” (again, capital R), is in Category:en:Fictional characters, even tho said article does not explicitly giv a definition referring to a fictional character (there is, however, aforementioned link to WP). Likewise, the articles “Wenceslas” / “Wenceslaus” (spelling variants of the same name) ar both placed in Category:en:Christmas, even tho neither article has, in itself, anything related to the Christmas (there is the famous Christmas carol “”). The article “partridge” is also placed in said category, even tho it also has no information linking it to Christmas (the Christmas carol “” says, “a partridge in a pear tree”). There are a number of other articles on proper names, that ar placed in “Category:en:_” even tho there is no definition explicitly linking said name to said topic (see Category:en:List of topics).

I get the argument, that if we put a WT article on a name into “Category:en:[Topic]” just because said name is that of someone or something related to said topic, we could get overcategorization – the same article could be placed in far too many (topic) categories. For instance, the article “Neville” probably does not belong in Category:en:Harry Potter, just because of HP character ; it is not clear that he is the primary (i.e. most common or most famous) use of said term; there was, for instance,. But for having the article “Hermione”, in Category:en:Harry Potter, this argument is easily overcome: as i said, Hermione Granger is overwhelmingly the most famous use of said name.

Sorry if my post is long, but i had a number of points that i wanted to air.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Luna
Another issue about Wiktionary's coverage of Harry Potter: should a Wiktionary article titled “Luna Lovegood” be created? (See the Wikipedia article “”.) The term “Luna Lovegood” can be used as a verb: www.dictionary.com/e/fictional-characters/luna-lovegood “Luna Lovegood”. Examples given on said website: Said website says, “Luna Lovegood’s name is sometimes used as a verb among fans of the Harry Potter series. Luna Lovegooding can mean to behave in an absentminded way or to be eccentric. Often it refers to a combination of both that encompasses the character’s mix of confidence, dreamy demeanor, and unconventional belief system.” [Italics as in original.]
 * “She isn’t even fazed! This girl is straight Luna Lovegooding right now.”
 * “harry styles is just luna lovegooding his way through life.”

Said website has a footnote: “This is not meant to be a formal definition... like most terms... on Dictionary.com, but is rather an informal word summary that hopefully touches upon the key aspects of the meaning and usage of Luna Lovegood that will help our users expand their word mastery.” Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * lol, you shouldn't trust Web sites. Equinox ◑ 04:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, a Wiktionary article "Luna Lovegood" (with said meaning) probably should not be created unless said meaning is attested on other sources (Wiktionary terms ar supposed to hav three separate attestations; see Criteria for inclusion). Especially since i hav a suspicion that dictionary.com is not a very reliable source. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Category rename
I created “Category:en:Harry Potter appendices”. However, i think it should be renamed “Category:Harry Potter appendices”. (I chose not to put hyperlinks here because i think red links look ugly.) After all, i believ in concision, and i also created “Category:Star Wars appendices” and “Category:J. R. R. Tolkien appendices” (with said category titles, without the “en:” part); so the “en:” part should be unnecessary for said Harry Potter category as well. Btw, these three categories of appendices for a specific fiction series or author, hav the benefit of decluttering “Category:Appendices of works of fiction”, as well as the respectiv categories: Category:en:Harry Potter, Category:en:Star Wars, and Category:en:J. R. R. Tolkien. Therefor said three categories of appendices, should be kept. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)